Yes, it would seem Will's crusade for this book has more to do with his own prejudice and bias against what he perceives to be "scientific" materialism than anything else.

He seems unable to accept that despite Meyer's protests, all of Meyer's arguments are in favor of a supernatural intelligent agent.

N

No Namdrol, my concern is with lack of fairness, equanimity or truth valuing on the part of many online Buddhists.

And what would Meyer's arguments be, pray tell; page number refs will be accepted. Meyer does not hide his Xtian beliefs, but his arguments for ID are not theological.

If Newton, a devout theist, were alive today none of his insights would be tolerated, much less promulgated by the bigots of science.

This notion that religious beliefs trump or motivate every other thought on any subject, especially science, is true for some Buddhists, Xtians, Jews et al. But there are plenty (the majority?) of people of varied faiths who can think and chew gum at the same time.

Namdrol: The book has been soundly trashed by real scientists, not to mention the fact that ID and Buddhism are not compatible.

Many of whom (maybe most) never read the book - now that is "science".

Yes, we get it, Will. Because we (or some of us) did not read the book we cannot hold a valid opinion on it. Which is a completely impractical way to approach life, and as hard as you may try, it is not a scientific approach at all. I reject Islam and Scientology, and the material that I have read on those together you can scribble with a crayon on the back of a napkin. I reject a theory of a flat earth, and that beetroot can cure AIDS. I do not believe that Joseph Smith actually received the new and improved word of god on gold plates - and yet I have read incredibly little about all of those, and certainly none of their source documents. Do you accept all of these propositions? Have you read these source documents? Why do you reject them?

Because life is too short. We trust the opinions of others more qualified than us, or who have more time and experience than us in those specific areas of expertise. Compared to say Islam I have given ID a very fair shake, because back in my Christian days these topics actually made sense. But when others, qualified in both science and Christian theology, reject ID to the extent that it is done then it is fair and justifiable to similarly reject that position, without having read each and every screed that gets pumped out by a desperate and very well-funded industry.

So, enough with the "you haven't read it" complaint already. If Jesus is your new best imaginary friend then I am very happy for the two of you, but please - not here at Dharma Wheel.

Will wrote:No Namdrol, my concern is with lack of fairness, equanimity or truth valuing on the part of many online Buddhists.

MYM answered this adequately.

And what would Meyer's arguments be, pray tell; page number refs will be accepted. Meyer does not hide his Xtian beliefs, but his arguments for ID are not theological.

Of course they are, since they are bound up speculation. His tests at the end of the book are silly.

If Newton, a devout theist, were alive today none of his insights would be tolerated, much less promulgated by the bigots of science.

Newton was more interested in Alchemy than math. And he, like many of his contemporaries, believed in a designer aka god. Darwin permanently upset that apple cart by showing why the appearance of design in fact is just a sign of natural selection. Meyers and his whole crew of ID people are all just passing off speculations as science.

This notion that religious beliefs trump or motivate every other thought on any subject, especially science, is true for some Buddhists, Xtians, Jews et al. But there are plenty (the majority?) of people of varied faiths who can think and chew gum at the same time.

Well, basically Meyers is a fellow of the Discover Institute. They have an ideological agenda which is contra evolutionary biology. They are about as anti-scientific as one can get. He is absolutely intent on proving that God created life. He wrote in 1999:

Physics and cosmology suggest intelligent design as a highly plausible and arguably best explanation for the exquisite fine-tuning of the physical laws and constants of the universe and the precise configuration of its initial conditions. Since the fine-tuning and initial conditions date from the very origin of the universe itself, this evidence suggests the need for an intelligent as well as a transcendent Cause for the origin of the universe. Since God as conceived by Christians and other theists possesses precisely these attributes, His creative action can adequately explain the origin of the cosmological singularity and the anthropic fine-tuning. Since naturalism denies a transcendent and pre-existent intelligent cause, it follows that theism provides a better explanation than naturalism for these two evidences taken jointly. Since pantheism, with its belief in an immanent and impersonal god, also denies the existence of a transcendent and pre-existent intelligence, it too lacks causal adequacy as an explanation for these evidences. Indeed, a completely impersonal intelligence is almost a contradiction in terms. Thus, theism stands as the best explanation of the three major worldviews theism, pantheism, and naturalism for the origin of the Big Bang singularity and anthropic fine-tuning taken jointly.

a) Try to get intelligent design accepted as a plausible and "scientific" explanation for the origin of life, alongside Darwin's natural selectionb) Having done so, then it is a short step to getting theism accepted as the best inferable explanation for intelligent designc) Introduce creationism into the schools via the backdoor of ID.

His book has been well cleansed on his theistic predilections. But his agenda is perfectly clear, he is anti-evolution, anti-science. He studied the philosophy of science in order undermine one scientific theory, as far as I can tell, Darwin's theory of natural selection.

Furthermore, the Discover Institute promotes that most un-Buddhsit idea: "human exceptionalism" the idea that human beings are "exceptional" among living creatures and morally superior to all, etc.

N

Last edited by Malcolm on Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

"The hallmark of the intelligent design movement, however, is that it purports to rise above the level of personal skepticism. It claims to have found a reason why evolution could not have produced a structure like the bacterial flagellum, a reason based on sound, solid scientific evidence.

Why does the intelligent design movement regard the flagellum as unevolvable? Because it is said to possesses a quality known as "irreducible complexity." Irreducibly complex structures, we are told, could not have been produced by evolution, or, for that matter, by any natural process. They do exist, however, and therefore they must have been produced by something. That something could only be an outside intelligent agency operating beyond the laws of nature – an intelligent designer. That, simply stated, is the core of the new argument from design, and the intellectual basis of the intelligent design movement.

The great irony of the flagellum's increasing acceptance as an icon of anti-evolution is that fact that research had demolished its status as an example of irreducible complexity almost at the very moment it was first proclaimed. The purpose of this article is to explore the arguments by which the flagellum's notoriety has been achieved, and to review the research developments that have now undermined they very foundations of those arguments.

...

This, however, is not what is meant by "intelligent design" in the parlance of the new anti-evolutionists. Their views demand not a universe in which the beauty and harmony of natural law has brought a world of vibrant and fruitful life into existence, but rather a universe in which the emergence and evolution of life is made expressly impossible by the very same rules. Their view requires that the source of each and every novelty of life was the direct and active involvement of an outside designer whose work violated the very laws of nature he had fashioned. The world of intelligent design is not the bright and innovative world of life that we have come to know through science. Rather, it is a brittle and unchanging landscape, frozen in form and unable to adapt except at the whims of its designer.

...

Against such a backdrop, the struggles of the intelligent design movement are best understood as clamorous and disappointing double failures – rejected by science because they do not fit the facts, and having failed religion because they think too little of God."

Namdrol wrote:It is interesting to note that the Templeton Foundation, one of leading science/religion interface foundations, regards intelligent design as a political movement.

N

and the list

a) Try to get intelligent design accepted as a plausible and "scientific" explanation for the origin of life, alongside Darwin's natural selectionb) Having done so, then it is a short step to getting theism accepted as the best inferable explanation for intelligent designc) Introduce creationism into the schools via the backdoor of ID.

does not stop there ...

d) reeducate those who do not believe soe) considere that some can never be reeducatedf) eradicate those who cannot be reeducatedg) ...

Sönam

By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.- Longchen Rabjam -

This is a fine answer and I, being an old creature, understand. But if this attitude is the rationale for someone under 50, who never studies the root texts of ID (or any notion that is rejected), then I still chalk that up to laziness, peer pressure & other intellectual vices.

Recall the example of HHDL, when he left the hothouse of Tibetan thinking and visited India. His instilled notions regarding the exclusive truthiness of Buddhism had the sharp edges smoothed, when he met theosophists who saw value in all spiritual paths.

So no, Jesus is still far below Buddha in my inner pantheon. I just think it is not good thinking (or living) to rely only on one's favored views and never confront directly opposing views. Too much insularity is a bad thing, no matter whether politically, spiritually, socially or personally.

From p. 6 of Toward a True Kinship of Faiths by HHDL:

Looking back to this trip in 1956, I realize that my visit to the Theosophical Society in Chennai (then Madras) left a powerful impression. There I was first directly exposed to people, and to a movement, that attempted to bring together the wisdom of the world's spiritual traditions as well as science. I felt among the members a sense of tremendous openness to the world's great religions and a genuine embracing of pluralism. When I returned to Tibet in 1957, after more than three months in what was a most amazing country for a young Tibetan monk, I was a changed man. I could no longer live in the comfort of an exclusivist standpoint that takes Buddhism to be the only true religion. When tragic political circumstances in 1959 forced me into exile in India to live as a refugee, I was paradoxically offered the freedom to deepen my personal journey of understanding and engagement with the world's faith traditions.

The problem is that Intelligent Design is something designed by Christian liars to force Creationism on America.

This is established fact at both the scientific and legal levels.

If Meyers really had something novel to say, he shouldn't have used such a contaminated phrase like "intelligent Design".

Will wrote:But if this attitude is the rationale for someone under 50, who never studies the root texts of ID (or any notion that is rejected), then I still chalk that up to laziness, peer pressure & other intellectual vices.

What are you talking about?

The LENGTHY Dover trial established that ID is a shell game for Christian liars.

The "root texts of ID", as you phrase it, are the Old and New Testaments of the Bible.